Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#381

Post by Consultant32452 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:50 AM UTC

refulgentis wrote: post #356

Consultant32452 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you point out that specific passage? As I read it he specifically went out of his way to say that all of the women he worked with were qualified.

He literally says that those hiring practices can lower the bar. Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.

I'm sorry, but you sound like you're using double-speak. If Google has indeed lowered the bar for some minorities then it's Google who is exhibiting the soft bigotry of lowered expectations, not Damore for simply pointing it out. If Damore has simply incorrectly interpreted Google's hiring policy, then Damore is still not a bigot based on this statement. Damore went out of his way to specify that all of his coworkers were qualified and offered suggested policies which would attract more women without the bigotry he interpreted in the current hiring practices.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#382

Post by moduspol » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:50 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #358

moduspol wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the full context, though. The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: the relevant group is the hiring pool for Google. By the time men and women reach the point where Google's hiring policy is relevant toward their outcomes, the distribution of their abilities is already quite different. That's not even really questionable: It's w…

Except what you said about social constructs in your comment isn't argued in the memo, hence you're now projecting about "selective interpretation." Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). Th…

> Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man.

You're evaluating the statement that way. That's not a straw man--it's removal of original context.

> Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies).

Yet another example of the suspiciously common inability of opponents to comprehend the statement.

The statement makes no mention of biological abilities, only distribution of abilities in general (and preferences), caused possibly in part by biological factors.

And once again: The relevant group is the hiring pool for leadership / tech at Google, which undoubtedly has an unequal distribution of qualified men and women as a result of differing distributions of the abilities of men and women at that stage of their careers.

Here's Damore's statement again, with the context from the purpose of the document added by me:

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women (by the time they can be affected by Google's hiring policies) differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

Tah-dah! When it's not stripped of context, the meaning is more clear. I still don't suspect misinterpretations will stop, though.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#383

Post by mirimir » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:51 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #130

darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to the extent that it attempted to organize around changes to Google management that might (might) themselves violate EEO laws (for instance, any kind of official recognition that men are better suited to software development at Google than women), they were not. Was he trying to do that, though? As I understand it, he was protesting policies that sought to actively promote diversity. EEO laws require no such a…

He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under E…

> He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair.

Exactly. Google had the right to fire him. Which is why he should have published his memo anonymously. Unless, like Snowden, he felt that authentication was important, and was willing to face the consequences.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#384

Post by maroonblazer » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:52 AM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #276

Consultant32452 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the progressive left THRUST Damore and anyone who might have similar thoughts/questions into the welcoming arms of the alt-right. I'm disappointed with the "Goolag" t-shirts, but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. So this socially awkward nerd did what any sensible person would do, rode the wave that was sent his way the best he coul…

He has no agency? He chose to speak up and then he chose to go down the path he did. It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port in a storm of his own making. Allow me to pour out a beaker of Soylent for the poor, downtrodden white man.

I think it's plausible that had the memo not been leaked externally he'd still have his job. In that respect he truly didn't have agency.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#385

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:52 AM UTC

shadowmint wrote: post #369

leereeves wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When more than one person makes the same provably false claim, such as "There is no such “legal right” to discuss things in the workplace", isn't it worth correcting more than once?

Unfortunately posting more or less the same comment in many threads just makes other people do exactly the same thing in frustration and destroys the entire comment thread with copy-paste wars. It's bad forum etiquette everywhere, not just on HN, and it ruins the conversation for everyone. > When more than one person makes the same provably false claim /shrug Right or wrong regarding the content, you're not a one-per…

I think that it's helpful to provide accurate information.

And that a conversation inspired by false statements should be derailed before it strays even further into fantasyland.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#386

Post by manfredo » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:53 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #327

manfredo wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please identify where the memo claims they women have lower average ability than men. As a hint: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. This statement references distributions, not averages. E.g men may be more prevalent…

> Please identify where the memo claims they women have lower average ability than men The claims about their average tolerance for high-status jobs is a direct statement about average ability for certain job roles. You can perhaps argue that it accurately reflects the psychological research (which is a different discussion), but it absolutely is directly a statement about ability. He also specifically says women gen…

He claims that women on average choose to work less stressful jobs. The exact terms he used are, "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance". Perhaps others think "tolerance" is closer to "ability" than "preference", but that's not how I view it. For example, I have a pretty low tolerance for cold climates. I can tolerate them when I need to like when hiking on Alaskan glaciers, visiting relatives in cold places. On average I'm a pretty outdoorsy person so I think have have a good ability to hike in the cold, as I'm confident in my ability to layer clothing and whatnot. But usually I choose not to because that is my preference. Regardless, Damore even says that there are ways to mitigate this. He suggests that Google should,

> Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.

For your second paragraph, here is the full quote.

> This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.

This is in the context of how women prefer to channel extraversion. Again, preferences make it harder for them to end up in leadership roles. And yet again, Damore offers a way to mitigate this and achieve greater numbers of women in leadership roles:

> Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do.

For both of your points, these aren't claims about ability but preferences from my reading. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, Damore still claims that these differences shouldn't exclude women from tech and advancing in tech careers and lists out ways to limit the impact these factors currently have.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#387

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

Arainach wrote: post #374

stcredzero wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed I'm frankly ashamed at the behavior of my classmates, who were so enthusiastically throwing him under the bus, without really knowing anything about him. I found it very odd that people who had no basis of judging his software engineering skills had very strong opinions about them. I'm reminded of a documentary film about North Korea, where during…

Team interaction is a software engineering skill. The ability to work with a diverse set of people and bring them together rather than disparaging and dividing them is a software engineering skill. I would rather have a good programmer who got along with my team than a great one that wrote such memos.

Then perhaps Google shouldn't ask for feedback on their courses. Seems rather disingenuous to say the least.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#388

Post by rmrm » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

ikeyany wrote: post #286

Consultant32452 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the progressive left THRUST Damore and anyone who might have similar thoughts/questions into the welcoming arms of the alt-right. I'm disappointed with the "Goolag" t-shirts, but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. So this socially awkward nerd did what any sensible person would do, rode the wave that was sent his way the best he coul…

For a company supposedly full of smart people, you'd think they'd be able to gracefully handle so called "problematic" views like Damore's.

You are not allowed to make protected groups feel harassed or discriminated against. Women are a protected group.

Its a federal workplace law. A company will correctly fire you if you cause women to feel harassed or discriminated. Peoples understanding of whats allowable needs to catch up with the implications of the laws.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#389

Post by bduerst » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

berberous wrote: post #328

bduerst wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from your original comment: >This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability. Edit: Rather than reply, you now edited your comment to split hairs on distribution vs averages. That doesn't change the facts about Damore's argument about biological ability to be in tech is unfounded.

The difference between distribution vs. averages is important. See the image linked to below. Damore is arguing the top half of the image. Many people mistakenly believe he is arguing the bottom half. Perhaps you believe the top half is unfounded too, but it's an important distinction. https://heterodoxacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Damo...

Right. And what many have said is that there is not enough evidence in his to support the top half on his claim of biological abilities. Preferences, sure, but that can also be attributed to social constructs which he specifically tries to rule out.

It's splitting hairs to make it about distribution when there isn't sufficient evidence to support a distribution in the first place.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#390

Post by tptacek » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #343

rayiner wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a core assumption that when it comes to employment, men and women are generally similar at a cognitive level and equally well suited to different white-collar professions. We adopted that presumption as a protective mechanism, when we came out of a long period of invoking pseudo-scientific ideas about differences between men and women to justify sexism.

Can you point to anywhere in his memo where he claims that men and women's cognitive level is different? Again I have read this quite a few times and I don't see it. So can you point me to exactly where he claims that?

These kinds of objections will draw approving nods from people who already agree with you, but to everyone else, the implication that differences in IQ variance between men and women lead the "top of the curve" to be naturally overpopulated with men is exactly what it sounds like: a claim for the intellectual superiority of men. Sure, there are dumb men; maybe they're even dumber than the dumbest women! But if you're looking for the best, that logic says, you're going to end up mostly with men.

But put that aside and just try to engage with the simultaneously naive and arrogant assumption that the people Google hires --- people, we assume, like Damore --- must somehow represent the top of that curve. Because what they do is just so demanding.

I work in this field, at a pretty deeply technical level, and when I hear other people in it make arguments premised on the notion that what we do demands the pinnacle of human cognitive ability, I just want to hide under a rock from embarrassment.